Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[DarthAmerica]

The cogent lesson is Israels F-16's used in the strike on Syria. Weasels and their kin can still deal with co-ordinated ADS.

again, the message is not about focussing on the platform - it's how coherent the package is that counts.

I understand that. When the package includes a public that is adverse to preventable losses and that public has the money to buy the latest and greatest things like this matter. Now I don't doubt that there are very few scenarios that the USAF could not get their F-16s in and out of. But our doctrine calls for overwhelming dominance. Our public demands minimal cost in lives. F-16s post 2020 are not likely to meet those objectives. Neither will the other legacy aircraft. So my focus is not really on the platforms but rather the mentality of the people using those platforms.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now fit a typhoon into this package of half-hearted support measures - so my view is that it matters more how an individual platform performs in an euro context.

true enough. capability analysis is fraught with these embuggerances.

The USAF has the advantage of breadth, depth and the fact that it can also call upon elint/ewarfare/sigint capability from the USN and more spear throwers from the USMC.

at a euro level there is an imbalance, and the single point of failure then begins at co-ord issues - as well as gap and overlap in niche capabilities.

but, capability and overmatch is relative to the threat.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It's just so darn complicated.

Here's a perspective: IIRC Europe's got no stand-off power jamming capability; can assemble 6-8 sqns of escort jammers (when I did the tally a few years ago); is very proficient in self defence system, but does not field to full potential. Europe looks fine wrt stealthy cruise missiles and is lacking at the moment on the UAV/UCAV side, though this looks to be remedied. ELINT looks reasonable.

Now fit a typhoon into this package of half-hearted support measures - so my view is that it matters more how an individual platform performs in an euro context.

OTOH the yanks got it all in numbers AND stealth. (OT comment: Stealth is not all eggs in one basket, as some will lay it out.)

Just a little quick fact addressing the old quantity vs quality issue. By 2013-2015 the United States will be receiving into the inventory more F-35s annually than most other airforces around the world have in total fighter strength. So it's not just high tech and stealth, its sheer weight of numbers too. The low cost of the F-35 has benefits.

EDIT: Brought this up because a lot of people are under the impression that some conflict is coming where the DoD will be vastly outnumbered when in fact since WW II the DoD has almost always had both numerical and qualitative advantaged against it's enemies. A trend likely to continue well into the future.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

at a euro level there is an imbalance, and the single point of failure then begins at co-ord issues - as well as gap and overlap in niche capabilities.

Also that. This was actually what you were thinking of when using the term "coherency."

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also that. This was actually what you were thinking of when using the term "coherency."

got it in one, although primarily I was using coherency at a politico-military level as it covers a multitude of sins...

 

[DarthAmerica]

got it in one, although primarily I was using coherency at a politico-military level as it covers a multitude of sins...

Such as Operation Allied Force?

-DA

 

[obrescia]

They don't require it. They get it because its a force delivery multiplier. If you have it - you use it.

Like everything this has to be analysed in context.

F-117's were not heavily supported in GW1 as the corridors were cleared by all blue aircraft at ingress. IADS was decapitated and AEW ground based systems were decapitated or dislocated before insertion (which is how it's supposed to work)

F-117's in Serbia were supported as it was part of the package support. The package support was to also pick up other emission "tells".

Support is not an isolated platform specific issue - it's a system event - and it's done for a reason. LO or not, doctrine dictates that entering any contested space max available and relevant support is given.

Yeah, the US Navy during the Serbian campaign warned the USAF they could not give the required jamming support to the Nighthawks at the separation stand-off distances F-117s were from the EA-6Bs. It important to remember the F-22 pilots are to 'fly-around/between-threat-bubbles' that are generated in their F-22 cockpit displays. Fly inside a bubble means the bad guy can see you. So stealth is not invisible...its just another tool in the tactical toolbox to hopefully stack the deck in your favor.

 

[obrescia]

Kelly Johnson and stealth

Led by the late Ben Rich, the Skunk Works developed a formula for stealth by constructing an aircraft with flat surfaces placed at angles so that incoming radar beams were deflected away from the emission source. Kelly Johnson, the founding father of Skunk Works, had stayed on as a consultant, but in his view, Ben’s ideas simply would not work.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Led by the late Ben Rich, the Skunk Works developed a formula for stealth by constructing an aircraft with flat surfaces placed at angles so that incoming radar beams were deflected away from the emission source. Kelly Johnson, the founding father of Skunk Works, had stayed on as a consultant, but in his view, Ben’s ideas simply would not work.

After thousands of combat sorties are you seriously suggesting these methods didn't work?

-DA

 

[obrescia]

no longer "in service".

...no, that's what HE suggested. It "worked" only with jamming and SEAD support, and not anymore. 1st gen stealth is in the can. You can bring your inputs/concerns up with Mr. Johnson. Yes I know he's also no longer "in service".

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think we need to post a link to the post I made on stealth/LO. There are still some lingering misconceptions about it's history and utility that need to be reminded....

 

[obrescia]

detection sources installed about

What I am suggesting is stealth attempts 'not-to-reflex' the bulk of the radio energy back to the transmission/detection source. If you have other detection sources installed about, the radar energy may go there. This may have been what Kelly Johnson’s eventual concern really was. This is likely one of the capabilities of the S-300/S-400 SAM, and why you'll need jamming/SEAD support.

 

[Grand Danois]

What I am suggesting is stealth attempts 'not-to-reflex' the bulk of the radio energy back to the transmission/detection source. If you have other detection sources installed about, the radar energy may go there. This may have been what Kelly Johnson’s eventual concern really was. This is likely one of the capabilities of the S-300/S-400 SAM, and why you'll need jamming/SEAD support.

I have no clue as to what Kelly Johnsons concerns were, but I have yet to see an explanation on how a S-300/S-400 is going to detect a VLO jet, unless it was very close. Not transient spikes controlled by the flight control system against a geolocated threat, not via ambient signals scattered from the VLO jet (particularly when they fly above 10k ft).

So they must use voodoo magic.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think we need to post a link to the post I made on stealth/LO. There are still some lingering misconceptions about it's history and utility that need to be reminded....

Agreed. I'm sure you cover it but I'll sum things up in brief and in laymans terms. Stealth is not simply a technological solution or magic wand. Its tactics that take advantage of available technologies and it's as old as war itself. In the case of the USAF IIRC the definition is/was(?) that the attacking aircraft remained undetected until the first bombs were on target. That makes many aircraft "stealthy" under proper conditions.

I can sense we will soon be covering VERA and bi-static radars and all sorts of other Venik Aviation page type things soon.:shudder In this case though I think it may be a genuine misunderstanding and perhaps cultural/language differences too. Thats just a guess giving benefit of the doubt though.

-DA

 

[obrescia]

bug, leaf, and dragonfly

Unfortunately it’s probably very simple; you adjust your scan array resolution to pick-up and track every bug, leaf, moth and dragonfly fluttering/blowing about. Then use some real-time compute power to 'filter' out objects that fly like jets. The S-300 or S-400 likely has enough compute power to do this.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Unfortunately it’s probably very simple; you adjust your scan array resolution to pick-up and track every bug, leaf, moth and dragonfly fluttering/blowing about. Then use some real-time compute power to 'filter' out objects that fly like jets. The S-300 or S-400 likely has enough compute power to do this.

It's a lot more complicated than that even when you don't have people "feeding" data to you. A LOT HARDER. Take some online EET courses and you will see. Google S/N ratio or noise floor. Pretty much you need a signal theory class. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt on the hardware side which of course is not realistic in the least.


-DA

 

[obrescia]

...but still feasible, especially if you may fall under attack by countries with stealthy airplanes. Watch your local news & weather. They’ll show you where it's actually raining (!) If you’ve taken some classes then you’d know how commercial airline wind-shear radar works as well.

 

[Grand Danois]

Oh dear gawd!

 

[AegisFC]

Unfortunately it’s probably very simple; you adjust your scan array resolution to pick-up and track every bug, leaf, moth and dragonfly fluttering/blowing about. Then use some real-time compute power to 'filter' out objects that fly like jets. The S-300 or S-400 likely has enough compute power to do this.

I've seen sea spray drag down an entire combat system thanks to a radar whose operator set it up too sensitive. What you are talking about will just eat up computer resources and slow down overall reaction time, it will also distract the operators who are dealing with false contacts that they may very well miss the real target.

 

[rjmaz1]

I've seen sea spray drag down an entire combat system thanks to a radar whose operator set it up too sensitive. What you are talking about will just eat up computer resources and slow down overall reaction time, it will also distract the operators who are dealing with false contacts that they may very well miss the real target.

I disagree with most of what obrescia has posted, however he raises one valid point.

If computing power continues to rise at the current rate we will soon have the resources to set the radar at an extremely sensitive level.

That sea spray would not be travelling an 1000km/h like a stealthy inbound target so with enough computing power it could be ignored revealing the stealthy enemy aircraft.

Obviously there will be a limit on how sensitive you can go as computing power demand would increase exponentially for any slight increase in sensitivity.

To think that the The S-300 or S-400 has enough computing power to do this as obrescia suggests is completely laughable.

In 10 years time when the F-35 is operational with all partner nations the computing power would be high enough to see a stealth target from quite a distance.

The truth of the matter is a VLO stealth target will always be harder to detect regardless of computing power so it still has its advantages.